ON

SOIL INVESTIGATION, GEOTECHNICAL ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED BUILDING AT

BANESWOR, KATHMANDU

Client: Prepared By:

Mrs. Debaki Sah ( Sudi) NGC LAB (P) Ltd

Ward No:10, Baneswor, Kathmandu Metropolitan City Babarmahal, Kathmandu
Plot No. 478
Total Area = 367.58 Sqm. (0-11-2-1)

November 2018
1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................... 1
2. OBJECTIVE AND SCOPE OF WORKS....................................................................................................... 1
3. METHODOLOGY .................................................................................................................................... 2
3.1 FIELD INVESTIGATION ................................................................................................................... 2
3.1.1 In-situ Tests ........................................................................................................................ 2
3.1.2 Sampling .............................................................................................................................. 4
3.2 LABORATORY INVESTIGATION ...................................................................................................... 4
4. General Geology, Geomorphology and Seismicity ............................................................................... 6
4.1 General Geology and Geomorphology ......................................................................................... 6
4.2 Seismicity ..................................................................................................................................... 6
5. Observation and Results ....................................................................................................................... 8
5.1 Field Investigation Results ............................................................................................................ 8
5.1.1 Ground Water Table ............................................................................................................. 9
5.2 Laboratory Investigation Results .................................................................................................. 9
5.2.1 Index Properties ................................................................................................................... 9
6. LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL OF THE SITE ............................................................................................... 9
7. ANALYSIS OF ALLOWABLE BEARING PRESSURE .................................................................................. 22
7.1 CORRECTION FOR OVERBURDEN PRESSURE .............................................................................. 22
7.2 ALLOWABLE BEARING PRESSURE BASED ON ULTIMATE BEARING CAPACITY ............................ 22
7.3 ALLOWABLE BEARING PRESSURE BASED ON TOLERABLE SETTLEMENT .................................... 24
7.4 RESULTS OF THE ANALYSIS ......................................................................................................... 22
8. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION ............................................................................................ 22
9. REFRENCES ......................................................................................................................................... 23

Table 1: Relation of N value to Relative Density and friction angle for granular soils ................................. 3
Table 2: Relationship of N Value to Strength and Consistency for Cohesive Soils ....................................... 3
Table 3: Soil Profile ....................................................................................................................................... 8
Table 4: BEARING CAPACITY FACTORS ....................................................................................................... 23
Table 5: SHAPE FACTORS ............................................................................................................................ 23
Table 6: Bearing Capacity Calculation Sheet .............................................................................................. 22
1. INTRODUCTION
This report presents the result of the site investigation and laboratory tests for the Design of
the proposed building to be constructed at W a r d N o 1 0 , Baneswor, Kathmandu district as
per the agreement between Mr. Debaki Sah ( Sudi) and NGC LAB Pvt. Ltd. The investigation
characterizes the subsurface conditions and develops the necessary requirement for the
proposed safe bearing capacity of the foundation. Altogether 3 boreholes drillings were
carried out upto the depth of 15m. Standard Penetration Test has been carried out at
appropriate depths in borehole.

Project Site

Figure 1 : Drilling work on progress at site

2. OBJECTIVE AND SCOPE OF WORKS

The scope of work of present contract includes the following:

o Exploration of the subsurface conditions at various locations of proposed foundation

sites and conduct requisite in-situ tests.

o Limited laboratory testing of representative samples obtained during the field

investigation to evaluate relevant engineering parameters of the subsurface soils.

o Engineering analyses.

o Preparation of this report includes:

o Drill logs
o Results of in situ and laboratory test
o Assessment of bearing capacity
o Recommendations of foundation type and depth

1|Page
3. METHODOLOGY
3.1 FIELD INVESTIGATION

3.1.1 In-situ Tests

Field works involved percussion mechanism for drilling and sampling of the boreholes in the
proposed area to the maximum depth of 15 m from the ground levels and SPT were taken at
every 1.5 m intervals and are recorded. Borehole logs were prepared at the site on the basis of
the visual observation of the soil obtained from the boreholes. The boreholes logs are attached
to the annexes are later verified by lab test results.

Standard Penetration Test (SPT):

It consists of driving a Split Spoon Sampler with an outside dia. of 50 mm into the soil at the
base of borehole. Driving is accomplished by a drop of hammer weighing 63.5 kg falling freely
through a height of 750 mm onto the drive head. First of all the spoon is driven 150mm into
the soil at the bottom of the borehole. It is then driven further 300mm and the number of
blows (N values) required to drive this distance is recorded. Figure 5 shows the standard
penetration test procedure. Figure 3 and Table 1 show the friction angle for different N values.
Table 2 shows the soil consistency and compressive strength for cohesive soils based on SPT N
values.

Figure 2: Standard Penetration Test Procedures

2|Page
 N Relative Friction
value Density Angle

0-4 Very loose 26-30

4-10 Loose 28-34

10-30 Medium Dense 30-40

30-50 Dense 33-45

Over 50 Very Dense <50

Table 1: Relation of N value to Relative Density and friction angle for granular soils

Figure 3: Angle of shearing resistance for different SPT N value

N Consistency Unconfined Compressive Strength qu

value (kPa)

<2 Very Soft < 25

2-4 Soft 25-50

4-8 Medium Stiff 50-100

8-15 Stiff 100-200

15-30 Very Stiff 200-400

>30 Hard 400-800

Table 2: Relationship of N Value to Strength and Consistency for Cohesive Soils

3|Page
3.1.2 Sampling

(i) Disturbed Sample:

Before any sample was taken, the borehole was cleaned up of loose disturbed soil deposited
during drilling operation. The samples which were obtained from bailer and in the SPT tubes
were preserved as representative disturbed samples for finding out physical properties. The
samples thus obtained were placed in airtight double plastic bags, labeled properly for
identification and later transported to the lab for analysis.

3.2 LABORATORY INVESTIGATION

Picture 1: Sample Extracted through SPT Barrel

All the requisite laboratory tests were carried out in accordance with IS standard
specifications. Standard laboratory test was carried out to characterize the soil strata. The
laboratory testing is included the following tests: Moisture Content, Grain Size Analysis, Bulk
Density, Specific Gravity, Atterberg Limits, Consolidation Tests and Direct Shear Tests of
granular soil.

Natural Moisture Content and Bulk Density

The natural water content and bulk density was determined from samples recovered from
the split spoon sampler.
4|Page
Specific Gravity

The specific gravity test is made on that portion of soil which passes the No. 2.00 mm sieve.
The definition of specific gravity is the ratio of the weight in air of a given volume of a
material at a stated temperature to the weight in air of an equal volume of distilled water at
a stated temperature. This method covers determination of the specific gravity of soils by
means of a pyconometer.

Grain size Analysis

Grain size distribution was determined by sieving process. Sieve analysis was carried out by
sieving a soil sample through a set of sieves kept one over the other, the largest size being
kept at the top and the smallest size at the bottom. The soil retained on each sieve was
weighed and expressed as a percentage of the weight of sample.

Atterberg Limits

The physical properties of fine grained soils (clay and silt) get very much affected with water
content. Depending upon the amount of water present in a fine grained soil, it can be in
liquid, plastic or solid consistency states. The Atterberg Test will be used for determining
the consistency of a fine soil. The Liquid Limit is the water content at which a soil passes
from a plastic to a liquid state. The Plastic Limit is the lowest water content at which a soil
remains plastic. The Plasticity Index is the numerical difference between the Liquid Limit
and the Plastic Limit. The liquid limit of the fine grained soils was determined using the
Casagrande liquid limit device. A Plastic limit was determined using the standard ‘rolling the
soil into a thread of 3mm’ method. Casagrande plasticity chart was employed to determine
the classification of fine grained soil according to the Unified Soil Classification System.

Direct Shear Test

Direct shear tests were conducted on disturbed samples collected from the five boreholes.
The samples were carefully extruded from the sampling tubes and molded using standard
moulds of 6.0 x 6.0 cm² cross-sectional areas and trimmed to 2.5 cm high. Solid metal
plates were placed on both surfaces of the samples to prevent the dissipation of pore water
during shearing. The direct shear equipment is mechanically-operated and shearing will be
applied at more or less constant strain rate. If the samples are cohesive they will be
sheared at a relatively fast rate (duration of tests less than 10 minutes) to maintain un-
drained condition. The samples were sheared at three different normal stresses. The direct
shear test results are presented in terms of the failure envelops to give the angle of internal
frictions (Ø) and the cohesion intercepts (c).

5|Page
4. General Geology, Geomorphology and Seismicity
4.1 General Geology and Geomorphology
The proposed site lies in Kathmandu district. The proposed site is composed of Silty Clay and
Silty Sand up to a depth of 15 m.

Geologically, Nepal has been divided into five different zone such as Terai zone, Sub-Himalaya,
Lesser Himalaya, Higher Himalaya and Tibetan Tethys zone as shown in the geological map of
Nepal in Figs. 2a and 2b. The present site at Kathmandu lies in Lesser Himalaya zone.

Figure 4: Geological map of Nepal (Dahal 2006)

4.2 Seismicity

Due to Tectonic Forces, Himalayan zones and the neighboring areas are seismically very active.
Most of epicenters of earthquakes are found to be located in the unstable zones. The frequency
and intensity of earthquakes are found at the weakness of the crust such as major faults, major
bends or major acres. Location of Nepal in the Himalaya along with major tectonic boundary
and various longitudinal zones of the Himalaya are shown in Fig 3.

Seismic hazard map of Nepal is also shown in Fig 4. Figure 4 shows that earthquake with a
peak acceleration of 0.3 - 0.5 g may occur in 50 years, making the country very vulnerable to
earthquake. A recent earthquake on April 25, 2015 of magnitude 7.8 whose epicenter was in
Gorkha also proves that the country is very vulnerable to earthquake.

6|Page
Figure 5: Location of Nepal in the Himalaya along with major tectonic boundary and various longitudinal
zones of the Himalaya (Bhandary et al. 2013)

Figure 6: Seismic hazard map of Nepal (source: USGS)

7|Page
5. Observation and Results
5.1 Field Investigation Results
The dominant stratification is the composition of Silty Clay and Silty Sand. The major soil
profiles in each bore log are shown in following table:

BH No Depth range (m) Soil type

1 0 – 2.0m Greyish medium dense Silty Sand
2.0 – 4.5m grey to black medium dense Silty Clay
4.5 – 9.0m Light grey dense Silty Clayey Sand
9.0 – 15.0m Light grey stiff dense Silty Sand
2 0 –2.5m Grey to Yellow meduim dense Silty Clay
2.5 – 5.5m grey to black medium dense Silty Clay
5.5– 10.5m Light grey dense Silty Clayey Sand
10.5 – 15.0m Light grey stiff dense Silty Sand
3 0 –3.0m Grey to Yellow meduim dense Silty Clay
3.0 – 4.5m grey to black medium dense Silty Clay
4.5 – 9.0m Light grey dense Silty Clayey Sand
9.0– 15.0m Light grey stiff dense Silty Clayey Sand

Table 3: Soil Profile

Picture 2: Sample Collected in SPT Barrel

Standard Penetration Test (SPT) values are found in the range of 11 to 29 in the in-situ soil
strata at different levels. Laboratory test such as grain size distribution, dry unit weight, natural
moisture content, specific gravity, Shear strength properties of soil samples were conducted on

8|Page
disturbed soil samples extracted with standard procedure using Shelby (thin wall) tubes and
from bailer. The bore log profile is shown in Appendix I.

5.1.1 Ground Water Table

Ground water tables (GWT) was found at 5.5m depth during exploration.

5.2 Laboratory Investigation Results

5.2.1 Index Properties

The result of physical and index properties of soil samples collected from different depths are
presented in the attached summary sheet.

 The grain size distribution curves of soil sample are classified as USCS Soil Classification
System in which most of the soil fall in CL, SP, SM groups.
 Specific Gravity determination on selected soil samples is in the range of 2.634 to 2.671
 The moisture content of the soil samples from all the bores holes at various depths
varied from 11.76% to 21.05%, and Bulk unit weight of (11.92 – 13.50)
KN/m3collectively.
 Direct shear test of the sample found to be angle of friction (ϕ) 28.6 -29.1, cohesion of
soil (c) is 0.

6. LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL OF THE SITE

Liquefaction is a phenomena during which soil (mainly fine sand and silty sand) losses its shear
strength significantly and behaves as a fluid. During earthquakes, due to generation of excess
pore pressure, effective stress will be reduced and the soil may undergo complete liquefaction
or decrease in shear strength causing settlement and lateral spreading of soil mass.

In general, for clean sand, if the SPT value is less than 30, the soil is prone to liquefaction. The
increase in fines content, however, increases the liquefaction resistance of soil. In this report,
the soil liquefaction analysis has been done based on SPT N value. The summary of liquefaction
evaluation procedure is given below, the detailed can be found elsewhere (e.g. Jha and Suzuki
2009 a, 2009b)

The factor of safety ( FS ) against liquefaction in terms of CSR (Cyclic stress ration) and CRR
(cyclic resistance ratio) is defined by

CRR
FS 
CSR (15)

where CRR is the cyclic stress ratio, is the capacity of soil to resist liquefaction; CSR is the
normalized cyclic stress ratio (CSR), given by (Youd et al 2001) for earthquakes of magnitude

9|Page
7.5 and an effective overburden pressure of 100 kPa.

 v a max
CSR  0.65 d
 'v g (16)

where
 v is the total vertical stress;  v' is the effective vertical stress; amax is the peak

horizontal ground surface acceleration; g is the acceleration of gravity;

 d is the nonlinear
shear stress mass participation factor (or stress reduction factor).

The term
 d provides an approximate correction for flexibility in the soil profile given by:

(1  0.4113z 0.5  0.04052 z  0.001753z 1.5 )

d 
(1  0.4177 z 0.5  0.05729 z  0.006205 z 1.5  0.00121z 2 ) (17)

where z = depth below ground surface in meters.

Cyclic resistance ratio (CRR), the capacity of soil to resist liquefaction, can be obtained from the

corrected blow count (N1 ) 60 using empirical correlations. The CRR curves for a fines content of
< 5% (clean sands) can be approximated by Youd et al. (2001)

1 (N ) 50 1
CRR7.5, 1atm   1 60  
34  ( N1 ) 60 135 10.( N1 ) 60  45 200
2
(18)

for (N1 ) 60 < 30. For ( N1 ) 60  30 , clean granular soils are classified as non-liquefiable. The CRR

increases with increasing fines content and thus (N1 ) 60 should be corrected to an equivalent

clean sand value, ( N1 ) 60CS (Youd et al. 2001)

( N1 ) 60CS  ( N1 ) 60 ; FC  5%

( N1 ) 60CS  exp[1.76  (190 / FC 2 )]  [0.99  (FC1.5/1000](N 1 ) 60 ; 5%  FC  35% (19)

( N1 ) 60CS  5  1.2( N1 ) 60 ; FC  35%

where (N1 ) 60 is the SPT blow count normalized to an overburden pressure of approximately 100
kPa and a hammer energy ratio of 60% expressed as (Youd et al. 2001)

( N1 ) 60  NC N CE CBCRCS
(20)

CN
where N = measured standard penetration resistance; =factor to normalize N to a common

reference effective overburden stress (1atm.); C E = correction for hammer energy ratio; C B =
C
correction factor for borehole diameter; C R =correction factor for rod length; S =correction for

10 | P a g e
samplers with or without liners. The factor
C N is given by

2.2
CN 
1.2   'v / Pa (21)

CRR  CRR7.5, 1atm  MSF  K (22)

Here, MSF is the magnitude scaling factor; K  is the correction factor for effective overburden.
Following the recommendation of NCEER 1996 (Youd et al. 2001), the lower and upper bounds
3.3
for MSF values can be defined by MSF  10 / M w and MSF  (M w / 7.5) , respectively ( M w is
2.24 2.56

the moment magnitude). Similarly, K  is given by (Youd et al., 2001)

K  ( 'v pa ) ( f 1) (23)

pa
where is the atmospheric pressure (100 kPa) and f
is assumed to be 0.75 ( a value of 0.6-
0.8 is recommended in Youd et al., 2001).

The liquefaction analysis for BH-1, under some assumed conditions are shown in following
figure

11 | P a g e
 Liquefaction Analysis Results
The liquefaction analysis for BH-1, under some assumed conditions is shown in below Figure. Liquefaction analysis shows that soils up to the depth of
15m there is no susceptible to soil liquefaction in BH-1.

Liquefaction analysis
Maximum Ground acceleration =0.36 g BH No: 1
Ground Water
Table= 5.50 m
Depth  GWT N % finner N' v v' v/v' rd CSR CRR FoS
1.5 16.95 -4 8 23.53 13 25.425 65.425 0.389 0.978 0.089 0.144 >1
3 16.95 -2.5 15 32.33 22 50.85 75.85 0.670 0.955 0.150 0.235 >1
4.5 16.95 -1 20 7.28 20 76.275 86.275 0.884 0.933 0.193 0.214 >1
6 16.95 0.5 22 9.297 23 101.7 96.7 1.052 0.910 0.224 0.256 >1
7.5 16.95 2 25 7.09 25 127.125 107.125 1.187 0.888 0.246 0.302 >1
9 16.95 3.5 27 8.33 28 152.55 117.55 1.298 0.865 0.263 0.378 >1
10.5 16.95 5 29 7.51 30 177.975 127.975 1.391 0.843 0.274 0.500 >1
15 16.95 9.5 32 7.5 33 254.25 159.25 1.597 0.775 0.290 >0.5 >1

CSR: Cyclic stress ratio

CRR: Cyclic resisstance
ratio
rd: Mass precipitation
factor
Figure 8-1: Liquefaction analysis results for BH-1

1|Page
7. ANALYSIS OF ALLOWABLE BEARING PRESSURE
The allowable bearing pressure (qa) is the maximum pressure that can be imposed on the
foundation soil taking into consideration the ultimate bearing capacity of the soil and the
tolerable settlement of the structure. Analysis to determine the ultimate bearing capacity
and the pressure corresponding to a specified maximum settlement were performed and the
minimum pressure obtained from the two analyses were adopted as the allowable bearing
pressure.

7.1 CORRECTION FOR OVERBURDEN PRESSURE

CORRECTION FOR OVERBURDEN

The correction for values of N should be made for the field SPT values for depths. Modified
correction in 1974, peck, Hanson and Thornburn with suggested standard pressure of 100
kN/m2 corresponding to a depth of 5 m of soil with bulk density 20kN/m2 can be
represented by the following equation:

Nc=(CN) N
CN=0.77log(2000/p0)

Where p0 is effective overburden pressure in kN/m2.

CORRECTION FOR SILTS AND FINE SANDS BELOW WATER TABLE

The correction for values of N greater than 15 in fine sands below water level is as follows;
N=15 + 0.5 (Nc-15)

This correction is due to the fact that higher values are liable to be recorded due to pore

pressure.

7.2 ALLOWABLE BEARING PRESSURE BASED ON ULTIMATE BEARING CAPACITY

Since the soil in the vicinity of the foundation level has been found to be granular or non-
plastic, cohesion less sand at upper depth and low plastic cohesive silt at intermediate
depth, the allowable bearing capacity has been analyzed using the angle of friction and
cohesion values from direct shear test results. Empirical formula of Indian Standard IS

6403:1981 is applicable for this type of soils has been used to obtain the allowable bearing
pressure with safety factor equal to 3.

qa = c Nc sc dc ic+q (Nq-1) sq dq iq+1/2*B ſ Nſ sſ dſ iſ W’ (4.1)

Where: qa = net allowable bearing pressure, t/m2

C = cohesion in t/m2

22 | P a g e
 Nc, Nq, Nſ = Bearing capacity factors
sc, sq, sſ = Shape factors

dc, dq, dſ = Depths factors ic,

iq, iſ = Inclination factors

q = Effective surcharge at the base level of foundation in t/m2

B = Width of footing in m

ſ = Bulk unit weight of soil sample in t/m3

W’ = Correction factor for location of water table The

values of Nc, Nq, and Nſ may be obtained from Table

Angle of friction Ø (degree) Nc Nq Nſ

0 5.14 1 0

5 6.49 1.57 0.45

10 8.35 2.47 1.22

15 10.98 3.94 2.65

20 14.83 6.4 5.39

25 20.72 10.66 10.88

30 30.14 18.4 22.4

35 46.12 33.3 48.03

40 75.31 64.2 109.41

45 138.88 134.88 271.76

50 266.89 319.07 762.89

Table 4: BEARING CAPACITY FACTORS

The values of sc, sq, and sſ may be obtained from Table 2.

TABLE 2. SHAPE FACTORS

SHAPE OF FOOTING Sc Sq Sſ
Square 1.3 1.3 1.3
Table 5: SHAPE FACTORS

The depth factors shall be as

dc,= 1+0.2 Df/B√NØ

dq,= dſ = 1 for 10

dq,= dſ = 1+0.1 Df/B√NØ for 10

23 | P a g e
 The inclination factor shall be as under

ic = iq = (1-α/90)2

iſ = (1-α/ )2
W’ (effect of water table)

(a) If water table is likely to permanently remains at or below a depth of (D f+B) beneath
the ground level surrounding the footing then W’ = 1.

(b) If the water table is located at depth Df or likely to rise to the base of the footing
or above then the value of W’ shall be taken as 0.5.

(c) If the water table is likely to permanently got located at depth D f<Dw<(Df+B), then
the value of W’ be obtained by linear interpolation.

For different layer of stratified soil, methods generally used for determination of the pressures
induced by loads at different depths are based on the mathematical model due to bossinesq
with assumed isotropic, homogeneity and elastic conditions. The computation of vertical
normal stress due to uniformly loaded rectangular loading may be obtained from:

σz/q=1/4П* [{2*L*B*Z*L +B +z
2 2 2)^(1/2)
}/(z *(L +B +z )+(LB) )]*[{(L +B +2z )/
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

(L2+B2+z2) }

] * [ Tan-1*{2*L*B*Z*L2+B2+z2)^(1/2)}/(z2*(L2+B2+z2)-(LB)2) ]
(4.2)

Where: L = Length of footing in m

Z = Depth where load transformed in m q

= Effective load in t/m2

σz = Effective stress at depth z due to load q in t/m2

7.3 ALLOWABLE BEARING PRESSURE BASED ON TOLERABLE SETTLEMENT

The maximum allowable settlement for isolated footings in sand is generally 40 mm and for
mat foundation in sand the allowable settlement is 65 mm (Skempton and MacDonald,

1955). For isolated footings in cohesive soil is generally 60 mm and for mat foundation in
cohesive soil the allowable settlement is 100 mm (Skempton and MacDonald, 1955).

The method of Teng (1988) has been employed for the analysis. This method is a

24 | P a g e
 modification of the method of Terzaghi and Peck (1948) such that the allowable bearing
pressure could directly be obtained from the SPT values.

For isolated footings and strip footing in sand:

qa = 720(N-3){(B+1)/2B}2Rw’(1+Df/B)* (4.3)

*(1+Df/B) is limiting upto value of 2.

Where, qa is the net allowable bearing pressure in psf for maximum settlement of 25 mm.
The other notations are the same as in Eqs. 4.1 except unit of measurement.

The average SPT values from the boreholes in each structure have been selected for the
analysis of bearing capacity of the relevant structure.

The allowable bearing pressure for a limiting settlement other than 25 mm (e.g. x mm) can be
linearly interpolated from the allowable bearing pressure for 25 mm settlement.

qa(x mm) = qa(25 mm)(x/25) (4.4) If

the clay layer is encountered, the settlement was calculated by:

Sf=Ht/ (1+e0)*Cc log10 ((p0+Δp)/p0) (4.5)

Where: Sf = Consolidation or settlement in m

Ht = Thickness of soil layer in m e0

= Initial void ratio

P0 = Effective stress at mid height of layer in t/m2

Δp = Pressure increment t/m2

7.4 Consolidation settlement analysis

Consolidation settlement analysis shall be performed when fine grained soil is present
below foundation level and is saturated. Consolidation settlement is given by

Cc  '  
H  log 10 v H0
1  e0  'v (16)

where ΔH = settlement

σ’v = initial effective stress at mid depth of the layer

Δσ = change in effective stress at mid depth of layer

H0 = layer thickness

25 | P a g e
7.5 Results

Average SPT value and correction is shown in Table 3. Bearing capacity analysis results
for spread footing and raft foundation are shown in Tables 4 and 5, re spectively. A
sample calculation is shown in Figure 8.

Table 3: Average SPT value for bearing capacity analysis

SPT N Value Calculation (average from BH-1, BH-2, BH-3)

Depth Average N N60 Avg N60 Soil Type

(m)
1.5 8 6
3 10 8 Silty Clay
4.5 12 9 1410
6 16 12
7.5 19 14
9 23 17
Silty
10.5 25 19 Sand
12 32 24
13.5 34 26
15 35 26
1. Hammer efficiency is assumed as 45%

Bearing capacity at a depth of 4.0 m is estimated assuming cohesion = 3 kPa and angle
of internal friction as 30°. Local shear failure is as sumed where Clocal = 2/3×C and

ϕlocal = tan-1(2/3×tanϕ).

Consolidation settlement:

Considering water level conservatively at a depth of 5.5 m, consolidation settlement for

spread footing and mat has been performed. The results are shown in Table 5. A sample
calculation is shown in Fig. 9. As shown in Table, though the raft foundation has higher
settlement (for maximum permissible pressure of 155 kPa), it can withstand large
tolerable differential and total settlement and provides better seismic integrity during
earthquakes.

26 | P a g e
Table 6 Computation of Consolidation settlement

Footing Footing Footing Settlement

Footing type size (m) pressure (kPa) depth (m) (mm)

Spread
4x4 149 4 8
footing

Raft
13.84 x 20 155 4 70
foundation

27 | P a g e
7.6 RESULTS OF THE ANALYSIS
Bearing Capacity Calculation for Isolated Footing

Project: Geo Technical Investigation for the Design of Building at Baneswor, Kathmandu
Width of footing (B) 2 3 4
Length of footing (L) 2 3 4
Depth of footing (Df) 1.5 2 2.5 2 2.5 3 3 3.5 4
Area of footing (A) 4 4 4 9 9 9 16 16 16
Effective Depth 3.1 3.6 4.2 4.6 5.1 5.6 6.4 7 7.5
Angle of friction (Φ) 26.4 27.5 28.6 29.1 29.1 29.1 29.6 30 30.5
Bulk unit weight of soil ( 13.50 13.50 13.50 13.50 15.50 13.50 15.50 13.50 13.50
N‫ץ‬ 9.92 11.5 13.08 13.8 13.8 13.8 14.52 15.1 17.03
Sq 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
dq 1.23 1.30 1.37 1.20 1.24 1.29 1.22 1.25 1.29
dc 1.30 1.40 1.50 1.27 1.33 1.40 1.30 1.35 1.40
Rw2 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50
Net Ultimate Bearing Capacity of Soil (qnu) 211.77 317.46 448.93 389.38 611.61 562.27 774.90 716.13 888.25
Net Safe Bearing Capacity of Soil (qns1) 70.59 105.82 149.64 129.79 203.87 187.42 258.30 238.71 296.08
SPT after correction(N) 10 12 14 14 16 18 18 18 18
Net Safe Bearing Capacity from SPT (qns2) 58.67 93.44 139.31 126.08 183.36 255.36 272.64 306.56 340.48
Bearing Capacity From allowable settlement
Bearing capacity for 25 mm settlement 68.33 91.49 112.62 95.00 128.79 138.79 145.41 139.86 149.01
Bearing capacity for 40 mm settlement 96.27 128.98 158.45 134.59 176.96 195.96 197.74 193.33 203.61
Safe bearing Capacity 68.33 91.49 112.62 95.00 128.79 138.79 145.41 139.86 149.01
Loading pressure (q) 58.67 91.49 112.62 95.00 128.79 138.79 145.41 139.86 149.01
Settlement with loading (q) mm 21.47 25.00 25.00 25.00 25.00 25.00 25.00 25.00 25.00
Summary
Total Settlement with loading (q) 21.47 25.00 25.00 25.00 25.00 25.00 25.00 25.00 25.00
Bearing capacity for 25 mm settlement 68.33 91.49 112.62 95.00 128.79 138.79 145.41 139.86 149.01
Safe Bearing Capacity (qs) 58.67 91.49 112.62 95.00 128.79 138.79 145.41 139.86 149.01
Table 6: Bearing Capacity Calculation Sheet

22 | P a g e
 Bearing Capacity Calculation for Raft Foundation

Project: Geo Technical Investigation for the Design of Building at Baneswor

Width of footing (B) 13.84 13.84
Length of footing (L) 20 20
Depth of footing (Df) 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
Area of footing (A) 276.8 276.8 276.8 276.8 276.8
Effective Depth 13.4 13.8 14.4 14.9 15.5
Angle of friction (Φ) 27.5 26.9 27.5 27.5 28
Bulk unit weight of soil ( 11.91 11.94 11.92 11.92 12.01
Nq 14.53 13.6 14.53 14.53 15.3
Nc 25.43 24.3 25.43 25.43 26.37
N‫ץ‬ 11.5 10.64 11.5 11.5 12.22
Sc 1.2076 1.2076 1.2076 1.2076 1.2076
S‫ץ‬ 0.8616 0.8616 0.8616 0.86 0.86
dq 1.20 1.25 1.30 1.26 1.30
Rw2 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50
Net Ultimate Bearing Capacity of Soil (qnu) 601.92 610.46 718.70 759.81 865.08
Net Safe Bearing Capacity of Soil (qns1) 200.64 203.49 239.57 253.27 288.36
SPT after correction(N) 14 16 16 17 17
Net Safe Bearing Capacity from SPT (qns2) 102.26 127.85 139.46 151.66 155.38
Bearing Capacity From allowable
settlement
Bearing capacity for 50 mm settlement 294.00 325.50 336.00 346.50 346.50
Bearing capacity for 25 mm settlement 147.00 162.75 168.00 173.25 173.25
Safe bearing Capacity 147.00 162.75 168.00 173.25 173.25
Loading pressure (q) 102.26 127.85 139.46 151.66 155.38
Settlement with loading (q) mm 17.39 19.64 20.75 21.88 22.42
Summary
Total Settlement with loading (q) 17.39 19.64 20.75 21.88 22.42
Bearing capacity for 25 mm settlement 147.00 162.75 168.00 173.25 173.25
Safe Bearing Capacity (qs) 102.26 127.85 139.46 151.66 155.38

23 | P a g e
8. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
 The proposed building site has the majority of soil consists of Greyish Silty
Clay and Silty Sand
 In the following analysis, Bearing Capacity for both Shallow/Raft footings
at depths of (1.5, 2.0, 2.5, 3.0 and 3.5) for 2.0x2.0m, 3.0x3.0m, 4.0 x 4.0m
and 13.84.0x 20.0m size is analyzed.
 Raft footing is recommended at these depths and sizes. Recommended
Safe allowable bearing capacity for depth of 4.0 m can be taken as 155
KN/m2.

22 | P a g e
9. REFRENCES
USGS (United State Geological Survey):

http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/world/nepal/gshap.php

Bhandary, NP; Yatabe R; Dahal RK; Hasegawa S and Inagaki H (2013): Areal
distribution of large scale landslides along highway corridors in central Nepal.
Georisk: Assessment and Management of Risk for Engineered Systems and
Geohazards, DOI:10.1080/17499518.2012.743377

Dahal, R., K., 2006, Geology for Technical Students, Bhrikuti Academic Publications,
Kathmandu, Nepal, 756p.

Jha S.K., Suzuki K. (2009a): Reliability analysis of soil liquefaction based on standard
penetration test. Computers and Geotechnics (Elsevier), 36: 589-596.

Jha S.K., Suzuki K. (2009b): Liquefaction potential index considering parameters

uncertainties. Engineering Geology (Elsevier), 107: 55-60.

Youd, T.L., Idriss, I.M., Andrus, R.D., Arango, I., Castro, G., Christian, J.T., et al.
(2001). Liquefaction resistance of soils: summary report from the 1996 NCEER and
1998 NCEER/NSF workshops on evaluation of liquefaction resistance of soils.
Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 127(10): 817–833.
doi:10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2001)127:10(817).

23 | P a g e
Borehole Log

24 | P a g e
Laboratory Test Sheet

25 | P a g e
Site Photographs

Picture 3: Percussion Drilling on Progress

26 | P a g e
Picture 4: Executing SPT Test

27 | P a g e
Picture 5: Sample Extracted through SPT Barrel

28 | P a g e
Picture 6: Sample Extracted through SPT Barrel

29 | P a g e